On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 03:11:07 +0100
> From: Paulo Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: cvs
> commit:jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apache/commons/logging/implLog
> FactoryImpl.java
>
> That is not the problem.
>
> I do not want to implement a feature of some logger, what I want is
> that the wrapper does not collide with the "features" I am using.
>
> Besides, I can imagine a load of scenarios where multiple logging
> hierarchies could be used without multiple class loaders being
> involved.
>
> So, I don't like singletons on libraries and neither static methods
> that support that idea.
>
I find it quite amusing to note that all three of the logging
implementations we have defined wrappers for include *exactly* this
technique. That's what we call in the wrappers, so we're using them in
exactly the same way an application would use them if programmed directly
to these APIs.
LogKit does have the notion of hierarchies, but the others don't. Our
wrapper uses the default hierarchy -- if you want to support different
ones, you are now free to implement it in your own LogFactory. It doesn't
require any changes to the APIs, though.
> I hope I will come back with something more constructive later but
> my CPU is too busy right now.
>
Until someone comes up with patches instead of words :-), I'm going to
consider this issue closed.
>
> Have fun,
> Paulo Gaspar
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
